Hubert Dreyfus on Husserl and Heidegger: Section 3

[Morecake2]

It certainly meant a lot to me because at the time I was participating in an on-going debate with my peers about what authenticity actually was. To them it was being whatever your environment had socialized you into. It was a huge relief to find that it meant something quite different.

[poloisnacho]

Dreyfus, y u no talk about more about Husserl? #titlesofivdeoscanbemisleading

[Morecake2]

Thanks for putting this on YouTube. I remember being stunned by this when it was first shown on TV, and it is still compelling. Its hard to imagine the BBC doing this sort of thing these days.

[SecretTheatre]

@Morecake2 I agree. Saw it back in '87 on BBC 2 on Sunday evenings, I seem to recall. I got the book for Xmas! And it inspired me to study philosophy at university a year later.

[memoryburn7]

analyzing dawkins as someone who is trying to bring philosophy to the general public is not fair. he is trying to shoot fish in a barrel that absolutely need shooting. to do this, he may have to use crude tools but his goal is to just shoot fish in a barrel. he isn't trying to create a complex philosophy. if you want a more philosophically precise destruction of easily destructible things, see sam harris.

[peteface24]

@memoryburn7 Likewise analysing religion as 'easily destructible' is not fair. This is just the problem, Dawkins makes it look like shooting fish in a barrel when it's not. Neither Harris nor Dawkins have made any sophisticated attempt to engage philosophically with spirituality / traditional metaphysics yet they do present themselves as having done so.

[SecretTheatre]

@memoryburn7 Why do you need Sam Harris when 'these things' are easily destructible? Why have you not shown how to destroy them? Why are you appealing to some 'higher power'?

[stillceaser]

does anyone who posts on here actually read Husserl, Derrida, Heidegger, Merleau Ponty, Levinas, Satre & so on? It appears as though many do not have a fundamental understanding of what phenomenology or existensialism is concerned with, which is, to say the least, very frustrating.

[Shadapaga]

@stillceaser i read meleau ponty, satre, and husserl but i think that this is a good reading of all of them but i think it would help to have 5 or 6 true philosophers. I prefer Youtube because its faster to digest and i get to talk to people that read philosophy, like you. I do have a basic question, Heidegger disregards subconscious perception as superficial and not phenomenological, is this correct? i think that turning a nob might be a subconscious phenomenological experience.

[890buddha]

time is a very misleading problematic word, because it brings up a connotation of a clock which has nothing to do with time, clocks are just our superficial representation of 'time'.

[marioreaper]

what series is this from?

[Aswol25]

This is fascinating but utterly mind-blowing.

[transfixedtornado]

well, but Dasein doesn't come from "doing what one does", it's just what's happening every day.

Dasein in its most authentic is "Being towards death", which is exactly NOT "doing what One does", but in fact coming from the ultimate possibility of the finiteness of Being.

[dedbusted]

Dreyfus reminds me of Flanders from the Simpsons

[jkqd14]

Except Flanders would probably prattle on about Aquinas and Augustine like all those Christ-heads.

[dallaskenn]

@dedbusted You're cruel.

[wungabunga]

YOu can download his lectures on heidegger from berkley's webcast site. Good stuff.

[gntwrk]

Prob: If Being=Time, Time is construct of Consciousness. Heid already links Being on SubC level, as Event, so to speak (Dasein.) So, borrowing Sartre's lingo, Being-in-itself, or for-itself comes into play. Heid's being, to me, is for-itself in its circular construct. But Sartre's pre-cogito Being-in-itself transcends time. Being comes before C/T. Sart seems to end up w/simultaneity (if nothing exists, it is neither before or after being, so w/C there is pre-C, B-in-itself>B4itself Dasein.

[knowledgenaut]

you are mistaken, gntwrk. heidegger does not believe that being is identical to time, but rather exists within the HORIZON of time; meaning that in order to properly understand being (dasein) we must first have a background or horizon of that understanding, and for heidegger this horizon is time.

[gntwrk]

Thanks for the clarity.

[knowledgenaut]

you're welcome. i'm glad i could help!

[JosephLagrange]

Read about the quantum measurement, quantum entanglement and special relativity. These physical phenomenon deny objective spatiotemporal reality. the subjective consciouss observer creates the perseption of time. although time is not objectively real.

[dedbusted]

Where can I find the best info (scholarly articles) on the quantum measurement, quantum entanglement and special relativity?

[JosephLagrange]

for having a good understanding of QM and special relativity you would need to read at least about 12 books about math and physics. There are many books written by physics for the laymen which give a good udnerstanding of the phenomenology involved. im reading Quantum eninga physics encounters consciousness. There are also websites about philosophical papers, google quantum philosophy and interpretations of quantum mechanics.

[gen6k]

drop some lsd instead, you'll experience time coming to a halt, or eternity.

[qigong1001]

Not an article, but look up "douglas robb memorial lectures" where you will find great lectures by R. Feynman. This is good for beginners seriously interested in quantum physics. There are good google video lectures on relativity too given by ucberkeley. Emperors New Mind by Roger Penrose is a good book summarizing both. Its a little old, but good. Its a much wiser direction than trying to make sense out of unverifiable ideas of Heidi.

[soursourapples]

Not on the Newtonian plan of existence though.

[Dubitndum]

thanks

[soursourapples]

Plain English please!

[karbonista]

Heidegger is tough business. This is about the plainest-spoken explanation of him you're likely to find (which probably means it's a bit wide of the mark, or oversimplified).

"Even when one flees from the crowd, one flees from the crowd the way one flees from the crowd" is going in my google sig.

[soursourapples]

dreyfus does a lovely job of it also. have you read any of his stuff about the internet?

[sansserifim]

incomprehensible

[b1nphk66]

thats so true! were always in a mood.

[iggypot]

well in theory yes, buddhism is (as schopenhauer correctly translated) about the denial of the will to life...it is about the intellectual mastery of ones body and consciousness through meditation and mindfulness and following the eightfold path..however, if you follow that path in a community of others who are following the same path, then i dont think you could say its escapism. so long as other people are interacted with, there is care and compassion and some form of attachment to the world.

[iggypot]

all caring is directed toward the future - therefore being is time...wow, now i understand heidegger alot better. i cant help but think of the buddhas statements about all suffering coming from attachment to the wheel of time.

[ultrak0w]

actually care can be directed toward the past, present and future, and is always already caring, being-toward, all three simmul-'taneously'. This is the escatic structure of temporality which is explicitly position against any linear, modern constructions of time that we might find in Descartes or Hegel.

[begily]

buddhism could be seen in this light as a form of escapism. if all caring is directed toward the future, and the "goal" of the buddhist is to become detached from the "wheel of time" or time, then in some ways buddhist's want to detach themselves from the caring, and the suffering that they perceive in caring.

A Heideggerian interpretation of Buddhism?

[GeorgesBarras]

Simpel as this: Dawkins is not a philosopher, he's a scientist and a wannabe.

[robertreilly666]

and a total popularist dickhead.

[xytoplazm]

The only thing Dawkins was good for is the meme idea. And even that is a mistake. How can ideas possibly be quantified into regular units?

[R1ckr011]

@xytoplazm never heard of "concept neurons" have you?

Don't even attempt to imply that such a feat is impossible: neuroscience in in its infancy

[CadaverSplatter]

No Dawkins is not a philosopher, but he is a brilliant Scientist and thinker.

[FreeThought10]

He is a biologist, and quite good one; however, he let himself control by anger. Anger is not rational. He should stay more likely in science, where his strength is. Of course, creationism, which is completely a fallacy, had angered him, and began to try to do such books. There's also something that concerns me, and is that he wants everyone to believe that every great thinker are atheists. When there are as well Deist, Pantheists, Agnostics, and even some Theists. He is only a great scientist.

[LiberalVichy]

Which should be obvious - one can believe completely absurd things in one area (as I believe supernaturalism is), yet nonetheless hold totally rational and quite defensible views in another. Most creationists, for example, do not expect their car to fly.

[FreeThought10]

I didn't deny that supernaturalism is absurd. In fact, I think that most of it is. For instance, I am completely an atheist on the theist God, agnostic on the Deist, and I quietly have a pantheistic point of view. I have my agnosticism, like in reincarnation, of course, I don't believe in it. True.

[olafode]

Dreyfus and Magee are excellent in this introduction.

[VirusSyndicate]

What interests me, is how Heidegger relates to evolution. It's a shame that intellectuals (Dawkins. Miller, Blackburn, etc) dismiss Heidegger in the mistaken belief that he was unscientific and even irrational, when surely the reverse is the case?

[GordonMorrice]

For me, Dawkins is a close-minded puritan. I don't find his ideas, views and opinions very interesting. He's good at explaining biological states of affairs, but when it comes to philosophy, metaphysics and history of ideas, he gets out of his element. He's a million miles from Bryan Magee who is (was?) a brilliant man or "dasein" as it may be (!) who did an admirable job in bringing philosophy to the general public. He was like the Carl Sagan of philosophy.

[Philonus]

@GordonMorrice Yeah, I completely agree with you that Dawkins is a great scientist but a horrible and inept philosopher, his great knowledge in science and evolution, however, made him presumptuous authority figure of scientific rationalism.

[nwatts88]

@GordonMorrice thank fucking goodness someone else realises this.

[dallaskenn]

@GordonMorrice Arguably more appropriately the 'Tom Snyder'.

[R1ckr011]

@GordonMorrice That is very sad then for philosophy then, since, having myself books (Being and Nothingness, Phenomenology of Spirit, Thus Spoke Zaruthustra), and have never heard of him at all. I however, do not troll the news for cutting-edge philosophy.

[R1ckr011]

@GordonMorrice My Questions are for you then: Do not thoughts have a nuerochemical basis? And aren't all phenomenon by definition imprinted upon a substrate?

Also, everyone is closeminded in some fashion.  You yourself have expressed this yourself when it comes to Dawkins.

[stillceaser]

The core problem with Dawkins for me, is that as a scientist, he is a strict empiricist; therefore, he (as Husserl was to point out about empiricism) reduces all experience to that which is verifiable by contingency. This unfortunately obscures any notion of ideality (logic, mathematics etc), and as we know pure ideas cannot be reduced to contingency, which ever way you slice it. Phenomenology has much to contribute, it is such a shame it is not championed in public debates on religion & so on

[TheDavid2222]

@GordonMorrice I completely agree with you. The academic scholars fighting the forces of theocratic fascism should include people who have specialized in philosophy. "is there a god" is a philosophical question to begin with. What do you think of Dannielle Dennent? He was in my philosophy textbook and is still alive.

[peteface24]

@TheDavid2222 In substance Dennet is pretty much the same as Dawkins only he is trained in philosophy so he comes across as more polite and sophisticated. But his philosophy is largely reiteration of science because like Dawkins he is a strict empiricist. I think theocracy / fascism is something for philosophers of politics rather than religion to discuss. After all, many theocrats are atheists and most theists are not theocrats.

[Guaguanco11]

VS, some questions for you: How does Heidegger relate to evolution? Where does Dawkins and Blackburn dismiss Heidegger? Who is Miller?

[R1ckr011]

@VirusSyndicate Unscientific is any statement that cannot be empirically verified/falsified. It's really that simple. I haven't read Heidegger, so i don't know if he falls into those categories.

Note also how people have chosen Dawkins to act as a strawman, villifying him and ignoring the others....